mi 
S738 










































.4 : 



• ^ * 

, n 0 A S*W*s <J> O - 

*■* 0 * ... % "’ A* .... . ^ 

4* ,’^y^ ^ a .VQfiD*'. *<#•„ a* .” 

■Ii° *U* « 




i>*+ - 

4* . T 



• .0' tfi- ^ 

*> V % * 5 ”' 

•• . , •<• ^ A .*. ■ 


* aV** '* 

* A > O, • 

- 4 A^ 

i 4 A < 



a /•b'Orv O 


0*0 


C' vP. , 

* <t? «£* o' 

-V 4^ <$> * 

.'% •*•' ^ ,V... >0 °“'/ ;, 0 .-.,^. “'' 

-** V* M (j ° **J&tflTfoY+ ° 0J C; * -o/T^^L-r 



0*4 


* ^0* 


'^d* 


•?- -*■ ". 


‘ •*' • 

V * * ♦ 


«, -o5 ^ «» 

^ • *' * “v * - 0 

V « • • - 


k v - t • 




O't, 

* ^ ^ * 


f %■ *. _ .. 

O *o . » * A 

* ‘ ' # ♦ 0 ° * * * 

* o a» v 'a' 

■* t 4> A? ' «5 sS\\\T\^L» ^ 

■'J* 4 *tV o 

1 o V 


1 * A^’^. •* 

r •* a v • 

4 A 


.*•. ^ ** 

, VA 1 • 

<$> ,J 0 \ ° , 

•e *'YY»* % '*o'.7* .A 

o* t • V^V* ^ ^ c °' a 4 - 

C i f 

-. **d* : 

* ^4 o^ * w 

V* v*^ s > v v^-v 

*> v t »v% c> jy * 1 *«* '^ v * 

:• ^ <a *YSiEv. \ ,a* Sjti&&/h.* ^ * 




- 

- 4' 


<S> S 


<4 .v> '-A 

^4. ^ 


i * a V»A^ - 

r * A » * 

4 A 

.7- A 



A ,, o * « * 4 > , 




O, "o • * ' 



•*' <y % •**• a 0 ^ 

V cv «0 V * 4 * ** a> V 4*71% c 



4 o. 

» T +fr + 


0 -7j 





** A » 

• ’v. *■ 

«P v * 


« <v«\ *» 

♦ aV y> » 

4 ^ ^ 


!% o ^ & ' 

^ 47 o ^ 

»..* a <. *~r.* ,0 V '..I* A 

4> ^ fjv . i 1 •« "*{_ 

C r o 





% <, "TV* 

•}.'• fP' r °0 V A* 


•r v 


^ 4 


- ^ A 


. ^ 0 


<L o 

.UWNSNs % v <y» * ^ ♦ <sZf/li)&" ^ 

^0° ^ ^ ""’■’ A... <r '°^**“ S ^ 0 ° ^ A ... 

v .•& .^ v .‘is^;*. %. ,*Avi. 'A. ,p v s£k> 


**# * 


: **4 ; 
,: v 

o i*.v V^i 


« o 


4 v - v^r—r^v * , 

r ^ A V V A • 4^11^2 4 .$5 ^ . i 

* 5 A <,""..** .0^ Tb "o**' 

4> 6 o**a„ ^ 0^ • t,, -p ^ 

T v c Y&/j?7?-r ° 


* 




o v 


° i 0- n# 


•''• / %’*•?•' a0' 'V ‘.M-’v «*• V^.* ^ 

p V A 4, .V%#/C. t, a .' 

° %■<& 0 


^ A. *■ 

v^ v ° 


O 


5> o 




* 4VA J 

* AV * 

4 v <P 



O 'o.»- •> V W *'*’ ^ 

t '• 4 t 0 M„ V • 1 # * * 

--■* ^ 0 < : 

» .1 ✓-! <► 



* ^ ** 

: ^ v 


** •* 

.* ** ^ • 





,nq 




' 0 N 0 


* / ^ a 0 





» * 



s 

- *y o. . „ 

O, ‘..o’ A)- V. .<>> 

V * * O a aQ A t • O A 4 ^ I • • 

o ^ .<*, ^ - * 

< 


^•-jaBj.- /• ”\-wv,. '#jp. 

i-.%. >.•£».%"'y v .«I.V “.o’AUt-.V" ', 



'**. ^ ° ' 


^0 
<£ 




. K V . • *° • 

<?,.. % ***° , A 0 ' 'V *"’* ,« 

O k .. Ci a ^ * o 


' # 1 



* "F\k . C 

* ** o 4 “ 




v .. 



4 

s <L > ^ * 

* / o , 

<v 4 , *V«° <0 

: V rig: :«'; \/ 

* v ■* '*3 m 



. t M 



r ^ 



/ Q 

% #<r * 7 • ' <^ <* J* r \ '*?.* 

*c> i 0*'% % 0 * .*'»* **o 

° ^ •-^ % %> o° ° <A * 

* vft A •. JGruf//S&> * —-V^ % 

* ^ CT 

V V KK, * tyyyma? * ^5 ^ 

,* o') ^ k o % 

<0 tp\ ♦»,-»• A~ O, *(,»' .u 

0 ^ £ f • O* *^L ^\ V t # « ^ ¥ ^ v f # © V\ ’ \ 

„ . ' ‘ .V:a;V-“ w - v - 

^ •* « -<>*r. o^S^S. .V-* 




» ft 0 



W . x^ V ”V i 

^ „ A v ^ "J 

* <* *'" ** 
4- 0 «“*. <?. 

* ^ „ c 

* ^ v. 

x •»>,<*• O 

• J ^ 
r >° V * 


^ *; 




V' .*! 


# « 





«> 

3fc 

& y <$* <$ °°* 

„ A •** A v * 4 * A ^ *'»*** *0^ •'o * * - 

-* ^h* (y • fc 1 # ♦ e ©«o ^ . t ,» ^ 

C * o j'c- *p f* u .» 



* 4 o. 

0 ^ ^ - 
' ’ * *& 

<<? SM&r ^ 

^ „♦ fiafta • «„ <4 

^ °!vCn 4 ‘v ^ ’ 


. vP 

> vP. ° 



' tiirfmC*. ^ . 4 ?^ ^ v %> .o^ .’•■> 

‘ — .«A-« \/ .* J flK: ^ / / 


f » 



6 o"% '*£ 


•* -X 

■r O * 

* 4^4 4 

- ^ 0 ^ .• 

o \p VV 

% V' vV ^ 

..’* 0° V‘-.,, v 

■& >'«'£’. ■>. ,v v t *** 

,c^ : 




^ °-o 


o <P 'Tj ’ 

• -?- 1 ' ** ' W V oO.' 

^ * * 0 A 0 K ^ 

<. F s * v o ^cy . t * o. A 4 ^ A > 

* ^ ,•£ ’iOf^o ^ ^ 
’-WW; a v *V I 



o • » - < •'.*»* ,G -«»*i 

“ ■}> '^*r\ ^ ,* l "‘ O 4 

A k*<g§S&i(±+ r, . ^ *JFf/72frC + ° <V 



* aV*^> 

* AV b 

A v 0°*% 

^ ♦ _r^SNv ^ ^P f; 

* V 

Vfc 4 


° > 0v ^ • 

.o’* ^ 0 ° ^ **.,■, 

1 / i> T N A V 


4 <3* 


^°* 7 ^ ' 4. 

o*' n 0 "V ^ O 

* * o 





































































THE ALABAMA HISTORICAL SOCIETY 

MONTGOMERY 

Reprint No. 35 


The Nashville Convention 
of 1850 


BY 

DALLAS TABOR HERNDON 


[From the TRANSACTIONS, 1904, Vol. V] 


MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 
1905 













I 









































'i> : ■ 

■' (Sit 





VIII. THE NASHVILLE CONVENTION OF 1850. 

By Dallas Tabor Herndon, Mobile, Ala. 

The so-called Nashville convention, which met in the city of 
Nashville, Tenn., June 4, 1850, was a meeting of Southern men 
representing a number of the slave-holding States. The chief 
purpose of this meeting was generally conceded to be the pre¬ 
sentation of a united protest from the South against the attempt 
to exclude Southern men with their slaves from the national 
territories, which had recently been won from Mexico—in other 
words, to protest against all forms of the Wilmot proviso. 

The advocates of the movement declared in support of their 
plan that the constitution and the Union were in imminent 
danger from the threatened aggressions of the solid North; that 
the continuation of the Union in its integrity depended upon the 
organization of a great Southern sectional party; and that this 
was the aim of the convention. On the other hand, those who 
emphatically opposed the plan, characterized it as a treasonable 
scheme instigated by ultra-factional leaders in South Carolina 
and Mississippi to sever the union and form a Southern con¬ 
federacy. These accusations came largely from members of 
the Whig party, who further stigmatized it as a second Hartford 
convention. 

The Nashville convention grew directly out of a call made by 
a State convention held at Jackson, Miss., October 1, 1849. But 
there is evidence to show that the conception originated with 
some Southern representatives in Congress, the most conspicu¬ 
ous of whom were Senators Calhoun and Butler, of South Caro¬ 
lina, and Davis and Foote, of Mississippi. 

Foote’s and Butler’s statements made in the Senate on the 8th 
of May, 1850, in reply to certain adverse criticisms made by 
Senator Houston of Texas, throws some light on this point. 

Houston said in part i 1 “It has been a matter of sincere regret 
to me that the South, of which I form a part, deem it necessary 


1 Appendix to Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 100. 
See also Von Holst, John C. Calhoun, p. 317, et seq. 


(203) 



204 


Alabama Historical Society. 


at this time, and in consideration of what seems to be appre¬ 
hended, to resort to the extraordinary mode of remedying exist¬ 
ing evils, and averting others, by a convention. It would not do 
to start in South Carolina, where discontent has unfortunately 
in former times existed to an unlucky extent; but the little, gal¬ 
lant, heroic State of Mississippi, upon the brows of whose heroes 
the laurels are yet verdant and unwithered, must step forward 
and be the champion, the forerunner of this movement, while the 
good old State of Tennessee must become the theatre for the 
organization of the different representatives from the States.” 

To which Mr. Foote replied: 

“I trust he [Houston] did not intend to insinuate as a matter 
of opinion, still less to make the statement as a matter of 
fact, derived from any authority, that the sovereign State of 
Mississippi, in the incipient movement towards the National 
convention, for which she is responsible, was instigated by South 
Carolina or her statesmen; or that she acted otherwise than upon 
her unbiased judgment, without instigation from any quarter.” 

By December, 1851, Foote had changed his mind and frankly 
admitted in the following language Calhoun’s influence: 

“I have heretofore mentioned in this body, that it was through 
me, in the first instance, that Mr. Calhoun succeeded in instigat¬ 
ing the incipient movements in Mississippi, which led to the call¬ 
ing of the Nashville convention. I repeat that statement now, 
and insist that my fellow citizens of Mississippi, who had been 
thus induced to assume the responsibility of calling the general 
convention into being, had a right to expect the earliest informa¬ 
tion to be given to them of any contemplated departure from the 
original plan of operation.” 

This change of view he explained some days later as follows: 

“Mr. Calhoun, during his life, with the purest intentions, with 
no disposition to lead or control our State, had a pretty extensive 
correspondence with persons there. This is a fact which I did 
not know at the time I delivered the speech which has been read 
by the honorable Senator. The truth is, that I never heard, until 
recently, of the letter which I read the other day of Mr. Calhoun 
to a fellow-citizen of mine, Mr. Tarpley. I was surprised when 
I found that such a letter had been written. In the course of 
last year—and I say it without intending to cast any imputations 
anywhere—I ascertained by various evidences, that several gen¬ 
tlemen in my own State had been corresponded with by the dis- 


Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 205 

tinguished Senator from South Carolina, now no more, on this 
subject. The letters I have seen, according generally with this 
one, satisfied my mind that the modus operandi of the convention 
was more or less marked out by his great intellect.” 

The .Mississippi call for the Nashville convention was closely 
connected with the once famous Southern address, 2 issued by a 
number of Southern members of Congress in January, 1849. 
The Mississippi convention which issued that call referred to “the 
Address of the Southern delegation in the last Congress, to 
which the resolutions of the central and primary meetings in the 
State, and the proceedings of the convention which followed 
them, may be regarded as the response of Mississippi/’ 

In regard to this address Senator Butler made the following 
statement in the Senate: 

“The gentleman [Houston] has correctly said that the action 
of Mississippi is referable to, and originated no doubt in, what 
he calls the Southern address. I state here, on my responsibility 
as a senator upon this floor, that the meeting of southern mem¬ 
bers of Congress which resulted in the Address did not originate 
with South Carolina, nor was it suggested primarily by either 
of the Senators or Representatives of South Carolina. And so 
far as regards my distinguished colleague, [Mr. Calhoun,] he 
knew nothing of it, sir, until the suggestion had been made, and 
until there had been two or three meetings of these other gentle¬ 
men. The call itself for the meeting did not originate with my 
colleague; and, sir, three meetings occurred before he was con¬ 
sulted; and I am not sure that he was not in the first instance 
opposed to it. It did not originate with him. My honorable 
friend from Mississippi [Mr. Foote] and my honorable friend 
from Virginia [Mr. Hunter] met accidentally in a committee 
room of this Capitol, and a conversation there occurred; and, sir, 
with the intrepidity and courage which marked the character of 
both, they said that matters had assumed such an aspect, and the 
position of affairs was such, that something of the kind was 
called for. I say, sir, as a matter of history, that it originated 
with these two gentlemen, and was adopted afterwards by all, 
and by the honorable Senator from Texas; and it was no more 


2 Indeed some such idea seems to have been entertained by Southern 
congressmen even before the address was published. On November 12, 
1848, John Cunningham in a letter to Calhoun said, “Nothing can now 
arrest so well this fatal tendency as a concerted effort by the leaders of 
both parties at the South to get up a Southern convention, in compliance 
with their understanding at Washington and the necessity of the crisis.”— 
Correspondence of J. C. Calhoun, p. 1186. 



206 


Alabama Historical Society. 


• 

suggested by my honorable colleague, [Mr. Calhoun], than by 
that honorable Senator * * * * . The honorable Senator 

from Tennessee [Mr. Turney] was also at the first meeting.” 

Although the plan may not have been the conception of Mr. 
Calhoun, as generally charged at the time, it is a fact that he 
immediately adopted the idea, and became the leading exponent 
of it. 8 What really took place was essentially this. On the 23d 
of December, 1848, a caucus of sixty-nine Southern Congressmen 
was held in the Senate chamber, to consider some plan to avert 
the dangers that threatened their section. A committee of fifteen 
was appointed, which committee commissioned five of its mem¬ 
bers to prepare an address. Mr. Calhoun, who was the guiding 
spirit of this committee, drew up an “Address of the Southern 
Delegates in Congress to their Constituents.” On the 13th of 
January, 1849, the Address was reported to the whole committee, 
and it was finally adopted, Jan. 22nd, nine days later. 3 4 

In response to this address and in pursuance of its proposed 
plans the first State convention was held in Jackson, Miss., May 
7, 1849. However, this meeting was so poorly attended that 
the only action taken was to adjourn to the first Monday in 
October. 

Prior to the May Mississippi meeting, Mr. Calhoun wrote cer¬ 
tain significant letters to leading men in the various Southern 
States, which indicate clearly his interest in the movement and 
his influence on it. 

In a letter to John H. Means, of South Carolina, April 13, 
1849, he said: 

“I am of the impression that the time is near at hand when the 
South will have to choose between disunion, and submission. 

I think so, because I see little prospect of arresting the aggres- 


3 The following statement, made during the June session of the Nashville 
convention, is interesting: 

“Governor Matthews, of Mississippi, then made an explanation in regard 
to the origin of the convention—stated that it originated at a county meet¬ 
ing in Mississippi, the proceedings of which had been sent to Mr. Calhoun, 
and elicited the letter of commendation from him which had been pub¬ 
lished in the papers. He pronounced the charge that Mr. Calhoun had 
originated the project, infamously false.”— Republican Banner and Nashville 
Whig, June 13, 1850. 

4 Von Holst’s Constitutional History of the United States, 1846-1850, pp. 




Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 207 

sions of the North. If anything can do it, it would be for the 
South to present with an unbroken front to the North the 
alternative of dissolving the partnership or of ceasing on their 
part to violate our rights and to disregard the stipulations of the 
Constitution in our favor; and that too without delay. * * * 

But it will be impossible to present such a front, except by means 
of a convention of the Southern States.” 

Mr. Hilliard M. Judge, of Alabama, on the 29th of April, 
replied to a letter from Mr. Calhoun, dated the 15th of March, 
in this language: 

“Your suggestion as to the necessity of a convention of the 
Southern States is perfectly obvious. We can not get along any 
other way—the North will not be deterred from her course of 
wanton aggression by resolutions of the State legislatures, but 
let the legislatures first declare the principles and the people of 
the States can give them force and effect in convention.” 

To Andrew Pickens Calhoun, on the 24th of July, who was 
at the time in Alabama, he suggested the same plan, and asked 
whether Alabama might not be induced to make the call, adding 
that Atlanta would be a good point for the meeting. 

In a letter to Col. Tarpley, of Mississippi, dated July 9, 1849, 
he said : 5 

“Fort Hitt, July 9, 184.9. 

“Dear Sir: 

“I am greatly obliged to you for a copy of the proceedings of 
your meeting. I have read it with a great deal of pleasure. 

“You ask me for my opinion, as to the course, which should be 
adopted by the State convention, in October next. I have delayed 
answering your letter until this time, that I might more fully 
notice the developments at the North, before I gave it. They are 
more and more adverse to us every day. There has not been a 
single occurrence, since the rising of Congress, which does not 
indicate on the part of the North a fixed determination to push 
the abolition question to the last extreme. 

“In my opinion there is but one thing that holds out the prom¬ 
ise of saving both ourselves and the Union; and that is a South¬ 
ern convention, and that, if much longer delayed, cannot. It 


“This letter is not in the collection edited by Prof. J. F. Jameson for 
the American Historical Association. It was published in many Southern 
papers in 1850. See Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, May 27, 1850; 
also Nashville Free Whig, June 1, 1850; also see Von Holst, John C. Cal¬ 
houn, p. 327. 



208 


Alabama Historical Society. 


ought to have been held this fall, and ought not to be delayed 
beyond another year. All our movements ought to look to that 
result. For that purpose, every Southern State ought to be or¬ 
ganized, with a central Committee, and one in each county. Ours 
is already. It is indispensible to produce concert and prompt 
action. In the mean time, firm and resolute resolutions ought 
to be adopted by yours and such meetings as may take place be¬ 
fore the assembling of the Legislature in the fall. They, when 
they meet, ought to take up the subject in the most solemn and 
impressive manner. The great object of a Southern convention 
should be, to put forth in a solemn manner the causes of our 
grievances in an address to the other States, and to admonish 
them, in a solemn manner, as to the consequences, which must 
follow, if they should not be redressed, and to take measures pre¬ 
paratory to it, in case they should not be. The call should be 
addressed to all those who were desirous to save the Union and 
our institutions, and who in the alternative, should it be forced 
upon us, of submission or dissolving the partnership, would 
prefer the latter. 

“No State could better take the lead in this great conservative 
movement than yours. It is destined to be the greatest of suf¬ 
ferers, if the abolitionists should succeed; and I am not certain, 
but by the time your convention meets, or at farthest, your 
Legislature, that the time will have come to make the call. 

“With great respect, I am, &c., 

“J. C. Calhoun." 

As to Calhoun’s influence in fostering the Southern conven¬ 
tion, we have the testimony of Foote in a personal letter to Cal¬ 
houn on Sept. 25, just five days before the Mississippi meeting 
was held: 

“I am gratified to have it within my power to inform you that 
several leading gentlemen of both the two great political parties 
in Mississippi have promised me at our approaching convention 
to act upon your suggestion relative to the recommendation of a 
Southern convention." 

This influence is further shown by a letter written to him by 
A. Hutchinson from Jackson, Miss., on Oct. 5, 1849, just after 
the Mississippi convention. He writes : 6 

“Two of your letters to General Foote were enclosed to me, to 
be used according to my discretion on the question of the crisis. 
That suggesting a Southern convention was shown by me to our 


6 Correspondence of J. C. Calhoun, p. 1206. 



Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 209 

mutual friends Chief Justice Sharkey and Judge Clifton, who, 
although Whigs are well up to Southern rights. We adopted the 
idea with ardor, but all concurred in opinion, that if we should 
proceed on a course recommended from S. Carolina, we 
should fail. The idea of a Southern convention had previously 
occurred here—but you may well appreciate how much your 
opinion strengthened, confirmed and animated us. I dropped a 
note to Gen. Foote stating that it had occurred in Mississippi 
that a Southern convention was the important action required. 
You will understand this.” 

In conformity with the action of the May meeting, the Missis¬ 
sippi convention assembled at Jackson, October 1, 1849, and is¬ 
sued the call for a popular convention of the Southern States at 
Nashville in June, 1850. Before adjourning it adopted a vig¬ 
orous set of resolutions, 7 of which the following is an extract: 


T The complete resolutions, with the exception of the long preamble, are 
as follows: 

“1. Resolved, That we continue to entertain a devoted and cherished 
attachment to the Union, but we desire to have it as it was formed, and 
not as an engine of oppression. 

“2. That the institution of slavery in the Southern States is left, by the 
constitution, exclusively under the control of the States in which it exists, 
as a part of their domestic policy, which they, and they only, have the right 
to regulate, abolish or perpetuate as they may severally judge expedient; 
and that all attempts, on the part of Congress, or others, to interfere with 
this subject, either directly or indirectly, are in violation of the consti¬ 
tution, dangerous to the rights and safety of the South, and ought to be 
promptly resisted. 

“3. That Congress has no power to pass any law abolishing slavery in 
the District of Columbia, or to prohibit the slave trade between the several 
States, or to prohibit the introduction of slavery into the Territories of 
the United States; and that the passage by Congress of any such law 
would not only be a dangerous violation of the constitution, but would 
afford evidence of a fixed and deliberate design, on the part of that body, 
to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States. 

“4. That we would regard the passage by Congress of the ‘Wilmot 
Proviso,’ (which would in effect, deprive the citizens of the slave-holding 
States of an equal participation in the Territories acquired equally by 
their blood and treasure,) as an unjust and insulting discrimination—to 
which these States cannot, without political degradation, submit; and to 
which this convention, representing the feelings and opinions of the people 
of Mississippi, solemnly declare they will not submit. 

“5. That the passage of the Wilmot Proviso, or of any law abolishing 
slavery in the District of Columbia, by the Congress of the United States, 
would, of itself, be such a breach of the Federal compact as, in that event, 
will make it the duty, as it is the right of the slave-holding States, to take 
care of their own safety, and to treat the non-slave-holding States as 
enemies to the slave-holding States and their domestic institutions. 

“6. That the legislature is hereby requested to pass such laws as may, 
in their opinion, be best calculated to encourage the emigration of citizens 



210 


Alabama Historical Society. 


“(7) That, in view of the frequent and increasing evidence of 
the determination of the people of the non-slave-holding States, 
to disregard the guaranties of the Constitution, and to agitate 
the subject of slavery, both in and out of Congress, avowedly for 
the purpose of effecting its abolition in the States; and, also, 
in view of the facts set forth in the late ‘Address of the South¬ 
ern Members of Congress,’ this convention proclaims the deliber¬ 
ate conviction that the time has arrived when the Southern 
States should take counsel together for their common safety; 
and that a convention of the slave-holding States should be held 


of the slave-holding States, with slaves to the new Territories of the 
United States. 

“7. That, in view of the frequent and increasing evidence of the deter¬ 
mination of the people of the non-slave-holding States, to disregard the 
guaranties of the constitution, and to agitate the subject of slavery, both 
in and out of Congress, avowedly for the purpose of effecting its abolition 
in the States; and, also, in view of the facts set forth in the late ‘Address 
of the Southern Members of Congress/ this convention proclaims the de¬ 
liberate conviction that the time has arrived when the Southern States 
should take counsel together for their common safety; and that a conven¬ 
tion of the slave-holding States should be held at Nashville, Tenn., on the 
first Monday in June next, to devise and adopt some mode of resistance 
to these aggressions; and that this convention do appoint twelve delegates 
and twelve alternates—being double the number of our Senators and 
Representatives in Congress—to attend such convention, and that the 
other slave-holding States be invited to appoint delegates agreeably to 
the same ratio of representation. 

“8. That in the language of an eminent Northern writer and patriot— 
‘The rights of the South in African service, exist not only under but over 
the constitution. They existed before the government was formed. The 
constitution was rather sanctioned by them, than they by the constitution. 
Had not that instrument admitted the sovereignty of those rights, it never 
would have been itself admitted by the South. It bowed in deference to 
rights older in their dates, stronger in their claim, and holier in their 
nature, than any other which the constitution can boast. Those rights 
may not be changed,—even by a change of the constitution. They are 
out of the reach of the nation, as a nation. The confederacy may dissolve 
and the constitution pass away, but those rights will remain unshaken—. 
will exist while the South exists—and when they fall, the South will perish 
with them.’ 

“9. That to procure unity and promptness of action in this State, this 
convention recommends that a Central or State association be formed 
at the capitol, and affiliated county associations within the several counties 
of the State. 

“10. That we recommend to the legislature of this State, that at its 
next session, a law be enacted, making it the duty of the governor of the 
State, by proclamation, to call a general convention of the State, and to 
issue writs of election based upon the ratio of representation in the State 
legislature, upon the passage by congress, of the ‘Wilmot Proviso/ or any 
law abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, or prohibiting the 
slave trade between the States, to take into consideration the act of 
aggression, and the mode and measure of redress. 

“11. That a committee of six be chosen by the convention to prepare an 
address to the people of the slave-holding States .”—The Mississippian , 
Jackson, Miss., Oct. 5, 1849. 



Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 211 

at Nashville, Tenn., on the first Monday in June next, to devise 
and adopt some mode of resistance to these aggressions; and 
that this convention do appoint twelve delegates and twelve 
alternates—being double the number of our senators and repre¬ 
sentatives in Congress to attend such convention, and that the 
other slave-holding States be invited to appoint delegates agree¬ 
ably to the same ratio of representation.” 

Also an address to the people of the South was drawn up and 
adopted, from which the following extracts are taken: 8 

“This controversy is a most alarming one to every lover of the 
Union—its blessings and glories. It is a dispute between four¬ 
teen States on the one side and sixteen States on the other side, 
or of fifteen on each side, if Delaware should fraternize with the 
South. Threats of force on either side can never settle the con¬ 
troversy by intimidation. The passions of the parties may be 
good servants, but are bad masters. Interest, justice, humanity, 
patriotism—the love of the Union, a sense of its great advantages 
and the evils of disunion—the spirit of a past generation of our 
common ancestors, who achieved our independence, framed the 
constitution, ratified it, and formed the Union—must come to the 
settlement of this question in all the States. * * * 

“The Union must and will be preserved. The slave States, in re¬ 
sisting such dangerous and destructive usurpations of the Federal 
government, are defending the constitution and the Union. Their 
position is wholly defensive—defensive of their domestic rela¬ 
tions, and their private rights of property—defensive of their 
laws, upon which these domestic relations and rights of property 
are founded—defensive of their social and political existence as 
States; defensive of the constitution and the Union—defensive 
of law, order and good government—of the right of the people 
to govern themselves, by governments and laws of their own 
making, throughout the world. It is a cause which cannot fall 
before the social philosophy. 

“But should the non-slave States combine to enforce anti-re¬ 
clamation acts, and continue to pass laws to prevent the exten¬ 
sion of slavery into the Territories—should they further also at¬ 
tempt to abolish it in the District of Columbia, and in all places 
purchased for needful buildings in slave States—should they also 
attempt, by an amendment of the constitution, to abolish it in the 
slave States themselves—what protection have the slave States 
against these aggressions, and these dangerous usurpations of 
undelegated power, under a constitution by which they ought to 
be enabled both to protect themselves and possibly save the 


8 Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, p. 578. 



212 


Alabama Historical Society. 


Union? In discussing this subject, with a view to urge the 
States to ratify and establish the constitution, both Mr. Hamilton 
and Mr. Madison argued that the States, as organized communi¬ 
ties, could successfully resist all such aggressions. * * * 

“If the sixteen non-slave States (if Delaware be included,) be¬ 
cause by accident they now exceed the number of the slave 
States by two, and can send a majority of four Senators to Con¬ 
gress, although the slave States, at the ratification of the consti¬ 
tution outnumbered them by eleven, and because, also, they acci¬ 
dentally by their population, have a larger share of representative 
power to enable them to secure a majority in the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives, and to elect a president—if, from these accidental 
advantages, they determine, by a sectional combination, to elect 
a majority of Free Soil and Abolition Senators and Representa¬ 
tives, and a Free Soil and Abolition president, and thus to make 
the Federal government an engine, step by step, to destroy 
slavery in the fourteen slave States—first, by excluding slav¬ 
ery from the Territories, in order that, by admitting new 
States into the Union, they may increase the number of non¬ 
slave States to three-fourths; second, to abolish slavery in the 
District of Columbia, or in all places where Congress may exer¬ 
cise exclusive legislation; and lastly, to consummate the course 
of tyranny and usurpation by a change of the constitution, and 
the delegation of an express power to abolish slavery in all the 
slave States—what means of resistance have the fourteen slave 
States to secure their domestic relations, their porperty, their 
equality of rights, guaranteed to be inviolable by their constitu¬ 
tional bill of rights, and their existence and independence as sov¬ 
ereign States, and equal members of the confederacy? If the al¬ 
ternative presented by the non-slave States be a dissolution of 
their union with the slave States, or the abolition of slavery in the 
slave States, either side of this alternative is a dissolution, be¬ 
cause, if the slave States submit to it, they cease to exist as 
States and as sovereign parties of the Union. Resistance to such 
usurpations, is their moral, social, and political duty.” 

Of Mississippi’s action Mr. Calhoun wrote to Andrew Pickens 
Calhoun, on Oct. 22, 1849: 

“Mississippi has acted well on the slave question, and I hope 
Alabama and every other Southern State will back her and send 
delegates to Nashville. It is all important that they should. Bad 
would be our condition if the convention should fail for want of 
backing; but bright our prospects should there be a full meet¬ 
ing.” 

Some sort of action with reference to the convention was taken 


Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 213 

in various Southern States, following the Mississippi convention 
of October 1, 1849. A majority of the State legislatures 
passed resolutions endorsing it, and in most instances author¬ 
izing some plan of representation. However, there was little reg¬ 
ularity in the methods of selecting delegates. As shown above, 
Mississippi’s October convention appointed delegates. But on 
the 20th of March following, the legislature met in joint session 
and for some unknown reason chose other delegates. This ac¬ 
tion caused considerable dissatisfaction, especially among mem¬ 
bers of the Whig party. 9 A protest was entered, signed by 
twenty-seven members of the legislature, in which they alleged 
that the majority had overstepped their authority. In imitation 
of the method of choosing delegates to a national convention, 
they selected delegates upon a basis of two for each representa¬ 
tive in Congress, making four from the State at large, and two 
from each congressional district. 

In Alabama and South Carolina, the State legislatures passed 
resolutions endorsing the issue as proposed by Mississippi, and 
providing for the election of delegates. Later, in Alabama, a 
great deal of harsh criticism was provoked in the ranks of the 
Whig party, because, as they claimed, the legislature had usurped 
the privilege of the people. 10 In order to pacify these murmur- 
ings and to unite the two parties, the legislature subsequently 

9 The Vicksburg Whig has this to say of the attitude of the Whigs to¬ 
ward the action of the State legislature: 

“Nearly all the Whigs of that body have placed on record their solemn 
belief that as the October convention pledged the people to abide by the 
Nashville convention, it must be peculiarly appropriate to permit the 
people to have some direct agency in the appointment of delegates.” 

10 Mr. Hilliard, a prominent Alabamian of Whig sympathies, opposed 
the convention in a letter to a friend. He said: 

“As to the Nashville convention, my opinion, as things now stand, is 
against it. I adhere to the position taken by me last summer—that no 
convention ought to be held in advance of some act of aggression on the 
part of the government. The most the legislature should have done, was 
to agree upon some clear, sensible firm resolution upon the subject, and 
empower the government, in the event of an aggression, to call a con¬ 
vention of the people to consider the question in all its bearings: the 
wrong, the remedy. 

“I quite agree with you that there was no authority on the part of the 
legislature to appoint delegates. Our friends ought not to connect them¬ 
selves with it. 

“We shall settle the question, California will be admitted and the other 
portions of the Territory organized into governments without the Pro¬ 
viso.—Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, April 23, 1850. 



214 Alabama Historical Society. 

empowered the governor to call conventions in the various 
counties of the State in order that the people might approve or 
disapprove the action of the legislature. These meetings were 
usually well attended, and, almost without exception, endorsed 
the methods and candidates of the legislature. 

The Georgia legislature passed resolutions in the latter part of 
March, or early in April, wherein they endorsed the convention 
and empowered the governor to hold elections for the selection 
of delegates. In these resolutions they declared the proposed ad¬ 
mission of California would be a good and sufficient reason why 
the Union should be dissolved. Mr. Toombs himself repudiated 
this feature. At the elections held soon after, although a ma¬ 
jority of the counties that held them voted for the convention, 
not more than one-twentieth of the State’s entire vote was 
polled. 11 

In Florida, the governor was invested with the power of ap¬ 
pointment by the legislature, which also endorsed the plan. It 
is interesting to note that Gov. Brown, in reply to a letter from 
the Florida delegation in Congress, prior to the action of the 
legislature, urging him to exert his influence to have delegates 
appointed, refused on the ground that the plan was of a revolu¬ 
tionary character. He advocated, he said, constitutional methods 
of redress for all wrongs, and suggested that the South might 
obtain justice through the supreme court in case of any infringe¬ 
ment of rights. 

The North Carolina method, so far as it was carried out, 
seems to have been for each congressional district to meet in con¬ 
vention and elect two delegates to the Nashville convention; 

11 The Republican Banner and Nashville Whig of June 21, 1850, quotes 
from the Augusta Chronicle the following: 

“In glancing over the delegation from Georgia, we felt some curiosity 
to see how many voters they represented, and therefore addressed our¬ 
selves to the investigation, by which we ascertained the following re¬ 
sults : Messrs. McDonald and Colquitt, were appointed by the legislature, 
and may, therefore, be regarded as representing that body. Of the others 
in attendance, Messrs. Benning, Crawford, Gibson and Fouche were elected 
by the people of their respective Congressional districts, and received in 
the aggregate 2,409 votes, whom they may be considered as representing. 
The remaining four are appointees of Governor Towns, and may be sup¬ 
posed to represent his Excellency. Georgia numbers probably one hun¬ 
dred thousand voters, and yet these men who receive less than one-fortieth 
part of them, assume to represent her in this assembly.” 



Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 215 

and to elect six delegates from each county, who should assemble 
at Raleigh to elect four delegates from the State at large. 

The Virginia resolutions, adopted by the legislature on the 
4th of February, looked upon the proposed Nashville convention 
as a body to consult and to advise what action should be taken in 
case of any interference with slavery. In case the Wilmot Pro¬ 
viso should be passed, the governor was authorized to call a 
State convention which should be empowered to select delegates 
to a Southern convention. Nevertheless public meetings were 
held in many counties to elect delegates. Madison, Jefferson, 
Westmoreland, King George, Princess Anne counties elected 
delegates. In Richmond and Albemarle counties the convention 
element was defeated. In Albemarle, immediately after the regu¬ 
lar meeting adjourned, those who favored the convention met 
and appointed seventeen delegates to their district convention. 
Mr. Stevenson, late minister to London, presided at this meet¬ 
ing. 12 There was little or no sympathy with the movement 
in Western Virginia. T. Hayman, of Virginia, declared in the 
house of representatives, May 21, “Sir, the effort to get up meet¬ 
ings to send delegates to the Nashville convention has been 
almost an entire failure in Virginia.” 13 

The general assembly of Tennessee passed resolutions of en¬ 
dorsement, and provided for the appointment of delegates by 
the governor in the ratio of two for each representative in Con¬ 
gress. This law was killed, however, by the Whig senate. The 
citizens of Davidson county held a convention in the city of 
Nashville, at which the convention element was voted down, 
and the meeting seems to have ended in a split. 14 The minority, 
which favored a convention, then met behind closed doors, 
passed the resolution offered at the former meeting, and selected 
delegates to attend the convention. 

On Feb. 27, 1850, Mr. Anderson, of Kentucky, introduced 
in the legislature resolutions favorable to the convention, which 
were killed by a vote of 26 to 9. 

In compliance with the law passed by the Texas legislature, 


ia Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, April 19, 1850. 

13 Congressional Globe, 31st Congress 1st Session, appendix, p. 599. 

14 Nashville True Whig, May 7, 1850. 



2 l6 


Alabama Historical Society. 


elections were held in eastern and western Texas for the selection 
of delegates. Very little interest was manifested in the matter. 

Thus recognition of some character, generally by their legis¬ 
latures, was almost universal through the South during the fall 
of 1849 an< 3 the spring of 1850. The delegates were given no 
definite instructions by those whom they represented, but were 
left to exercise their own judgment as to what action they should 
take. The acts of the convention were not intended to be final 
or to have any binding force. But it was to consult, to advise, 
and to recommend, leaving to the people of the States concerned 
the privilege of adopting or rejecting the results of its delibera¬ 
tions. 

The convention held two sessions. For convenience, they may 
be designated the session before and the session after the com¬ 
promises of 1850. When the first session adjourned, Mr. Clay's 
famous Omnibus Bill, afterwards known as the Compromises of 
1850, was pending in Congress. These measures were passed 
before it reassembled. 

The convention met at Nashville, June 3rd, 1850. Represen¬ 
tatives from only nine States were present, although others had 
been appointed. They were as follows: Virginia, six; South 
Carolina, seventeen; Georgia, twelve; Mississippi, eleven; 
Texas, one; Alabama, twenty-one; Arkansas, two; Florida, 
six; and a large number from Tennessee. 15 


18 The Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, of June 5 and 6, 1850, 
gives the following list of delegates to the Nashville convention. It seems 
to contain some names twice and probably contains some misprints; but 
it is given precisely as it appeared. 

VIRGINIA DELEGATES: 

Willoughby Newton, R. H. Claybrook, Wm. F. Gordon, W. O. Goode, 
Thos. S. Gholson and Beverly Tucker. 

SOUTH CAROLINA DELEGATES I 

L. Cheves, R. W. Barnwell, J. H. Hammond, Samuel Otterson, Jno. A. 
Bradley, J. W. Whitner, A. C. Young, Maxey Gregg, James Chestnut, Jr., 
W. J. Hanna, R. F. W. Alston, F. W. Pickens, Drayton Nance, Geo. A. 
Trenholm, Wm. DuBose, D. F. Jamison, and R. Barnwell Rhett. 

GEORGIA DELEGATES: 

Hon. Walter T. Colquitt, Hon. Chas. J. McDonald, Col. H. N. Benning, 
M. J. Crawford, Esq., Obediah C. Gibson, Esq., Jas. W. Ramsey, Obediah 
Warner, Simpson Fouche, Gen. Robert Bledsoe, Andrew H. Dawson, Dr. 
Jno. G. McWhertor. 

ALABAMA DELEGATES : 

Gov. B. Fitzpatrick, Jno. A. Campbell, Jno. A. Winston, L. P. Walker, 



Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 


217 


The meeting 16 was formerly called to order by Gov. A. V. 
Brown, of Tennessee. Judge William L. Sharkey, 17 of Missis¬ 
sippi, was elected president by acclamation. Hon. Charles J. 


Nicholas Davis, Jas. Abercrombie, W. M. Murphy, S. B. Bethea, B. Boykin, 
G. W. Guyon, S. Buford, R. Shorter, Geo. Goldthwaite, J. S. Hunter, 
Daniel Coleman, Wm. Cooper, R. Chapman, Thos. A. Walker, G. S. 
Walden, Jno. E. Erwin, W. M. Byrd. 

Mississippi delegates: 

Judge Wm. L. Sharkey, C. P. Smith, A. M. Clayton, J. W. Mathews, 
T. J. Word, J. L. Neil, J. J. Pettus, J. J. McRae, E. C. Wilkinson, 
inson. 

TEXAS DELEGATE: 

Gen. J. P. Henderson. 


J. Powell. 


ARKANSAS DELEGATE: 
FLORIDA DELEGATES: 


Jas. Hernandez, B. M. Pearson, A. J. Forman, O. H. DuPont, J. F. 
McClellan, G. E. Cabel. 

TENNESSEE DELEGATES: 


Col. R. Warner, R. Jones, W. A. Sewell, F. W. Brents, Howell Taylor, 
Jas. L. Green, Thos. Shepard, Gen. W. Hall, Wm. B. Bate, E. Broddie, 
Geo. W. Allen, G. W. Winchester, Gen. D. Donelson, G. W. Bond, Isaac 
M. Gower, Boling Gordon, S. B. Moore, Edward Gantet, J. W. Whitfield, 
B. B. Satterfield, G. B. Fowlkes, Jas. Patterson, T. J. Kennedy, A. Ezell, 
Geo. T. Malone, F. T. McLauren, Geo. Everly, Thos. Buford, Col. Jno. 
Dergan, D. R. S. Nowlin, N. Y. Cavett, J. E. R. Ray, Jno. Poindexter, H. 
L. Johnson, D. P. F. Norflett, Wm. Overton, Jas. H. Estill, C. C. Garner, 
W. E. Venable, H. R. Estill, Thos. Jackson, Gen. G. J. Pillow, Wm. K. 
Polk, W. J. Strayham, G. R. Gantt, A. J. Porter, W. C. Whitham, C. J. 
Dickinson, Jas. Walker, F. Watkins, Robert G. Payne, Patillo, Patton, 
R. A. E. Wilkes, C. Polk, R. D. Casey, Thos. H. Hopkins, W. P. Rowles, 
Wm. B. Hall, Wm. Moore, A. W. Overton, A. Ferguson, Gen. Robert 
Armstrong, Gov. A. V. Brown, A. O. P. Nicholson, V. K. Stevenson, Wm. 
Williams, Dr. Jno. Maxey, J. J. B. Southall, Jno. McIntosh, Dr. J. N. 
Esselman, Andrew J. Donelson, Willo Williams, Jacob McGavock, Daniel 
Graham, A. W. Johnson, Andrew Jackson, W. F. Watkins, Frank Mc¬ 
Gavock, Gen. W. G. Harding, Thos. Claiborne, L. P. Cheatham, W. E. 
Owen, M. Barrow, W. B. Shepherd, Gen. E. W. Hickman, L. Hunter, H. 
Atkinson, J. B. Clements, T. D. Moseley, F. Robertson, Gen. Daniel 
Donelson, Westley H. Humphreys, Geo. W. Buchanan, Jno. T. Neil, 
Samuel Doke, Sam H. Whitham, Geo. M. Cunningham, E. E. Paget, J. M. 
Quarle, R. F. Eupton, Jno. Stephens. 

On the third day, the following new names were enrolled: From 
Arkansas, Ex-Governor Sam C. Roane; from Alabama, Thos. J. Judge. 

The following delegates’ names were stricken from the list not being 
present on June 5th: Gen. Robert Armstrong of Tennessee; Jos. N. 
Fernandez; E. C. Cabel, of Florida. 

19 The proceedings of the convention are fully reported in the Nashville 
papers, especially the Republican Banner and Nashville Whig. The reader 
is referred to these files as the authority for all statements unless other 
reference is specifically given. 

17 Wm. E. Sharkey was chief justice of Mississippi. He was one of the 
leaders in the convention of his State that called the Nashville convention. 



218 


Alabama Historical Society. 


McDonald, 18 of Georgia, was chosen vice-president. The con¬ 
vention next undertook the examination of the credentials of all 
delegates, after which they took their seats. 

The question of the ratio of representation in voting provoked 
much discussion. There was a strong sentiment in favor of 
voting by States, each State counting equally. This method was 
finally adopted. 

A resolution, introduced by Gov. Brown, of Tennessee, was 
adopted, which provided that each State delegation should 
choose two of its members to serve as a committee on resolutions, 
and that they might report on any other matter that they thought 
necessary. The members of this committee were: Messrs. New¬ 
ton and Gordon, of Virginia, McDonald and Benning, of Georgia, 
Barnwell and Hammond, of South Carolina, Murphy and Camp¬ 
bell of Alabama, Boyd and Clayton, of Mississippi, Henderson, 
of Texas, Forman and Pearson, of Florida, Brown and Nichol¬ 
son, of Tennessee, Roane and Powell, of Arkansas. Gordon, of 
Virginia, was elected chairman. 

In taking the chair, Judge Sharkey addressed the convention. 
He made an earnest appeal for harmony, and insisted that they 
should adopt courageous but conservative measures, and bear 
constantly in mind the great object for which they were as¬ 
sembled, namely, the perpetuation of the Union in its original 
purity. 

The session continued ten days, and during that time many 
resolutions and measures were proposed. These were freely dis¬ 
cussed ; after which they were referred to the committee on 
resolutions. The committee’s draft of the resolutions was sub¬ 
mitted late in the session, and was read before the convention by 
Mr. John A. Campbell, of Alabama. They were essentially 
those earlier proposed by him. With a few minor changes, they 
were unanimously adopted. 

The same committee prepared and submitted along with the 
resolutions an address to the people. This was finally adopted, 
although some opposition was manifested, especially to the part 
that opposed specifically the compromise measures. 


T«,r^ D ^ i d T ^ aS eIe fted governor of Georgia in 1839 and reelected in 
18 41 by the Union party. In 1851, he became the candidate of the South¬ 
ern Rights party, but was defeated by Howell Cobb of the Union narty 





Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 219 

So far as evinced by the report made, the entire proceedings, 
speeches, resolutions, etc., of the several States, were thoroughly 
harmonious upon the main issues to be considered, namely, the 
absolute equality of the States; the doctrine of State sovereignty; 
the right of a State to settle its own domestic relations and 
shape its own policy toward the institution of slavery; and the 
right of each State to an equal participation in, and protection 
of its property in all national territory. The Missouri line of 
compromise was regarded as a generous concession from the 
Southern States, but acceptable as the price of peace, in de¬ 
fault of their just claims. No threats were made in anticipation 
of the defeat of their demands, but simply a provision for the 
reassembling of the convention after Congress had adjourned, 
to devise further and effective means of redress in that event. 
The following are the resolutions in full, as adopted: 

“1. Resolved, That the Territories of the United States belong 
to the people of the several States of this Union as their common 
property. That the citizens of the several States have equal 
rights to migrate with their property to these Territories, and are 
equally entitled to the protection of the Federal government in 
the enjoyment of that property so long as the Territories remain 
under the charge of that government. 

“2. Resolved, That Congress has no power to exclude from 
the territory of the United States any property lawfully held in 
the States of the Union, and any act which may be passed by 
Congress to effect this result is a plain violation of the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States. 

“3. Resolved, That it is the duty of Congress to provide proper 
government for the Territories since the spirit of American in¬ 
stitutions forbids the maintenance of the military government in 
time of peace, and as all laws heretofore existing in Territories 
belonging to foreign powers which interfere with the full enjoy¬ 
ment of religion—the freedom of the press—the trial by jury and 
all other rights of persons and property as secured or recognized 
in the constitution of the United States are necessarily void so 
soon as such Territories become American Territories, it is the 
duty of the Federal government to make early provisions for the 
enactment of those laws which may be expedient and necessary 
to secure to the inhabitants of, and emigrants to, such Territories 
the full benefits of the constitutional rights we assert. 

“4. Resolved, That to protect property existing in the several 
States of this Union, the people of these States invested the Fed¬ 
eral government with the powers of war and negotiation, and of 


220 


Alabama Historical Society. 


sustaining armies and navies, and prohibited to the State authori¬ 
ties the exercise of the same powers. They made no discrimina¬ 
tion in the protection to be afforded or the description of the 
property to be defended, nor was it allowed to the Federal govern¬ 
ment to determine what should be held as property. Whatever 
the States deal with as property, the Federal government is bound 
to recognize and defend as such. Therefore, it is the sense of th’s 
convention that, all acts of the Federal government which tend 
to denationalize property of any description recognized in the 
constitution and laws of the States, or that discriminate in the de¬ 
gree and efficiency of the protection to be afforded to it, or which 
weaken or destroy the title of any citizen upon American Terri¬ 
tories are plain and palpable violations of the fundamental law 
under which it exists. 

“5. Resolved, That the slave-holding States cannot and will 
not submit to the enactment by Congress of any law imposing 
onerous conditions or restraints upon the rights of masters to re¬ 
move with their property into the Territories of the United States, 
or to any law making discriminations in favor of the proprietors 
of other property against them. 

“6. Resolved, That it is the duty of the Federal government 
plainly to recognize and firmly to maintain the equal rights of the 
citizens of the several States in the Territories of the United 
States, and to repudiate the power to make a discrimination be¬ 
tween the proprietors of different species of property in Federal 
legislation. The fulfillment of this duty by the Federal govern¬ 
ment, would greatly tend to restore the peace of the country and 
to allay the exasperation and excitement which now exist between 
the different sections of the Union. For it is the deliberate opin¬ 
ion of this convention that the tolerance Congress has given to 
the notion that Federal authority might be employed incidentally 
and indirectly to subvert or weaken the institutions existing in 
States confessedly beyond Federal jurisdiction and control, is a 
main cause of the discord which menaces the existence of the 
Union and which has well-nigh destroyed the efficient action of 
the Federal government itself. 

“7. Resolved, That the performance of this duty is required 
by the fundamental law of the Union. The equality of the peo¬ 
ple of the several States composing the Union, cannot be dis¬ 
turbed without disturbing the frame of the American institutions. 
This principle is violated in the denial of the citizens of the slave¬ 
holding States of power to enter into the Territories with the 
property lawfully acquired in the States. The warfare against 
this right is a war upon the Constitution. The defenders of this 
right are defenders of the constitution. Those who deny or im¬ 
pair its exercise are unfaithful to the constitution, and if disunion 
follows the destruction of the right, they are the disunionists. 


Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 221 

“8. Resolved, That the performance of its duties upon the prin¬ 
ciples we declare, would enable Congress to remove the embar¬ 
rassments in which the country is now involved. The vacant 
Territories of the United States, no longer regarded as prizes for 
sectional rapacity and ambition, would be gradually occupied by 
inhabitants drawn to them by their interests and feelings. The 
institutions fitted to them would be naturally applied by govern¬ 
ment formed on American ideas and approved by the deliberate 
choice of their constituents. The community would be educated 
and disciplined under a republican administration in habits of 
self-government, and fitted for an association as a State, and to 
the enjoyment of a place in the confederacy. A community so 
formed and organized, might well claim admission to the Union 
and none would dispute the validity of the claim. 

“9. Resolved, That a recognition of this principle would de¬ 
prive questions between Texas and the United States of their sec¬ 
tional character, and would leave them for adjustment without 
disturbance from sectional prejudices and passions, upon consid¬ 
erations of magnanimity and justice. 

‘To. Resolved, That a recognition of this principle would in¬ 
fuse a spirit of conciliation in the discussion and adjustment of 
all the subjects of sectional dispute, which would afford a guaran¬ 
tee of an early and satisfactory determination. 

“n. Resolved, That in the event a dominant majority shall re¬ 
fuse to recognize the great constitutional rights we assert, and 
shall continue to deny the obligations of the Federal government 
to maintain them, it is the sense of this convention that the Terri¬ 
tories shall be treated as property and divided between the sec¬ 
tions of the Union, so that the rights of both sections were ade¬ 
quately secured in their respective shares. That we are aware 
this course is open to grave objections, but we are ready to ac¬ 
quiesce in the adoption of the line 36 degrees 30 minutes north 
latitude, extending to the Pacific ocean as an extreme concession 
upon considerations of what is due to the stability of our institu¬ 
tions. 

“12. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this convention that 
this controversy should be ended, either by a recognition of the 
constitutional rights of the Southern people, or by an equitable 
partition of the Territories. That the spectacle of a confederacy 
of States, involved in quarrel over the fruits of a war in which 
the American arms were crowned with glory, is humiliating. 
That the incorporation of the Wilmot Proviso in the offer of set¬ 
tlement, a proposition which fourteen States regard as disparag¬ 
ing and dishonorable, is degrading to the country. A termination 
to this controversy by the disruption of the confederacy or by the 
abandonment of the Territories to prevent such a result, would be 


222 


Alabama Historical Society. 


a climax to the shame which attaches to this controversy, which it 
is the paramount duty of Congress to avoid. 

“13. Resolved, That this convention will not conclude that 
Congress will adjourn without making an adjustment of this con¬ 
troversy, and in the condition in which the convention finds the 
question before Congress, it does not feel at liberty to discuss the 
methods suitable for a resistance to measures not yet adopted, 
which might involve a dishonor to the Southern States.” 

The address was styled, “An Address to the People of Mary¬ 
land, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, etc.,” naming all 
the Southern States. This lengthy, exhaustive, and logical docu¬ 
ment was written by Mr. R. B. Rhett, of South Carolina, a leader 
of acknowledged ability in his State, and an extremist on South¬ 
ern rights. It gave first an historical review of the increasing ag¬ 
gressions of the North. It asserted that the South was reviled by 
the North on account of slavery, and that its condition in the 
Union was growing from bad to worse. The different measures 
of the compromise were severally taken up, and thoroughly criti¬ 
cized. With the single exception of the Fugitive Slave law, they 
were condemned in no uncertain terms. The address, in conclu¬ 
sion, however, declared in favor of reasonable and adequate com¬ 
promise, urging that the Missouri line be extended. 

Referring to the bill to admit California it said : 19 

“The South is excluded by the bill from the whole of that part 
of California lying on the Pacific, including one hundred and fifty 
thousand square miles of territory; and if this be done by the 
legislation of Congress, the mode in which it is done, is of no im¬ 
portance. California belongs to the United States, and all action 
by the individuals in that Territory, whether from the United 
States or from the rest of the world, appropriating the soil to 
themselves or erecting a government over it, is of no validity. 
They constitute a people in no proper sense of the term; but are 
citizens of the States or countries from which they have come, 
and to which they still owe their allegiance. When, therefore, 
Congress attempts to carry out and confirm the acts of these in¬ 
dividuals, erecting California into a State and excluding slavery 
therefrom, it is the same thing as if Congress had originally 
passed a law to this effect, without the intervention of these in¬ 
dividuals. The exclusion of slavery from California is done by 
the act of Congress, and by no other authority. The constitution 


19 Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, June 13, 1850. 



Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 223 

of California becomes the act of Congress; and the Wilmot Pro¬ 
viso it contains, is the Wilmot Proviso passed and enforced by the 
legislation of Congress. Here then, is that exclusion from this 
territory by the act of Congress, which almost every Southern 
State in the Union has declared she would not submit to, plainly 
and practically enforced by this bill. A free people cannot be 
satisfied with the mode in which they are deprived of their rights; 
a sovereign State will disdain to enquire in what manner she is 
stripped of her property, and degraded from an equality from her 
sister State. It is enough, that the outrage is done. The mode is 
of little consequence.” 

In regard to the partition of Texas it continued: 

“The next measure is in perfect keeping with this first feature 
of ‘the report.’ It takes from Texas, territory sufficient for two 
large States, and adds them to New Mexico. What the bill con¬ 
tains with respect to slavery will be of little consequence; for it 
is designed that next winter New Mexico thus constituted, shall 
follow the example of California, and be admitted as a State with 
a constitution excluding slavery from its limits—for without such 
exclusion she cannot hope to be admitted by the non-slaveholding 
States into the Union. The effect will be that territory, over 
which slavery now exists, equal to two States will be wrested 
from the South, and will be given up to the non-slaveholding 
States. The pretext is, that there is some doubt as to the boun¬ 
daries of Texas. Texas by her laws, when she was admitted into 
the Union, had but one boundary towards the West, and that 
boundary was the Rio Grande. Congress in the resolutions ad¬ 
mitting her into the Union recognized this boundary, by laying 
down a line of limitation between the slaveholding and non-slave¬ 
holding States—(being the Missouri compromise line of 36 de¬ 
grees 30 minutes parallel of north latitude)—through that very 
part of her territory, her right to which is now questioned. Her 
boundary of the Rio Grande to its source alone gave her this 
country; and was thus recognized and ratified by the resolutions 
of annexation. To vindicate this boundary for Texas, as a mem¬ 
ber of the Union the Mexican war took place; and in the treaty 
of Gaudalupe Hidalgo, it was finally vindicated and settled by a 
clause in the treaty, designating the Rio Grande as the boundary 
between Mexico and the United States. Thus, by the laws of 
Texas, by the legislation of Congress, and by a solemn treaty of 
the United States, the Rio Grande is the western boundary of 
Texas. Yet the pretention is set up, that her territory does not 
extend to within three hundred miles of the Missouri compromise 
line, where Congress in receiving her into the Union determined 
that her territory should be divided between the slaveholding and 


224 


Alabama Historical Society. 


non-slaveholding States. Texas is the only State in the Union 
which has the solemn guarantee of the government of the United 
States in every possible form to her boundaries. Yet this is the 
government which disputes them; and under the pretext that 
they are very doubtful, proposes to take from her nearly one-half 
of her territory. It is by virtue of such pretensions, that by the 
bill two States are to be taken from the Southern and given to the 
Northern States; and this wrong is aggravated by compelling us 
to pay for it, through the Treasury of the United States. 

“It is undoubtedly proper, that Texas should be quieted as to 
her boundaries; but she should be quieted by a law of Congress, 
plainly acknowledging them. If after her boundaries are settled 
the general government, to carry out the purposes of the constitu¬ 
tion, or in good faith to fulfil all the obligations, the annexation of 
Texas to the Union requires, should think proper to purchase any 
territory from Texas, the arrangement may be unobjectionable.” 

It then proceeded to discuss the bill to abolish the slave trade 
in the District of Columbia, as follows: 

“No one can suppose that Maryland and Virginia, slaveholding 
States then and slaveholding States now, could have designed 
to give Congress any power over the institution of slavery in this 
territory. Independently of the wrong to the people of the Dis¬ 
trict, to emancipate their slaves, it would be an intolerable evil 
to have a District between them, where emancipation prevails b^ 
the authority of Congress. Congress, in the bill reported as a 
part of the so-called compromise, now begins the work of the 
emancipation by declaring that if any slave is brought into the 
District for sale, he shall be ‘liberated and free/ If a slave is 
liberated because he is brought into the District, the next step, 
to liberate him because he is in the District, is not difficult.” 

In regard to the Fugitive Slave bill it said: 

“If these authorities do not enforce the requirements of the 
constitution, and aid in the recapture and recovery of fugitive 
slaves, Congress can do but little to enforce them. The bill pro¬ 
viding for the co-operation of the few officers of the United 
States government in a State, is practically quite insufficient to 
accomplish its aim. 

* * * * * * 

“The bill then, is, in the first place, quite inadequate to restore 
to us our fugitive slaves, and in the second place, gives the South 
nothing but what she is entitled to. If this was all, there would 
be nothing in the bill for which we should concede anything to 
the North. But it is not all. Under the pretext of bestowing on 


Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 225 

us a benefit, it perpetrates a usurpation on the reserved rights of 
the States. It provides that a slave may arraign his master, by 
the authority of laws made by Congress, before the courts of the 
States and of the United States, to try his right to his freedom. 
If Congress can legislate at all between the master and slave in a 
State, where can its power be stayed? It can abolish slavery in 
the States. Thus a power is assumed in the bill, which virtually 
extends the jurisdiction of Congress over slavery in the States.” 

Finally it suggested compromise: 

“Three times in Congress during this controversy, the South 
has proposed the Missouri compromise, which has been three 
times rejected by the North. Twice she has proposed a com¬ 
promise by which she consented to leave it to the courts of the 
United States to determine her rights. Instead of requiring 
sternly their recognition by Congress, fifteen sovereign States 
have consented to be carried into the courts of the country, and 
there to submit their rights in a territory belonging to them, to 
their final arbitrament. Their humiliation did not win the respect 
or confidence of the North and the proposition was twice re¬ 
jected. 

“The South in our opinion, might accept one other compromise, 
not because it is co-extensive with our rights, but because it has 
been twice sanctioned by those who have gone before us. If the 
North offers the Missouri compromise, to extend to the Pacific 
Ocean, the South cannot reject it, provided, a distinct recognition 
of our right to enter the territory south of 36 degrees 30 minutes 
north latitude, is expressed in the compromise. We should take 
this line, as a partition line between the two sections of the Union; 
and beyond this, nothing but what the constitution bestows.” 

As stated above, the delegates were not a unit in their endorse¬ 
ment of the address. 20 The committee was divided and, being 
unable to compromise their differences, a minority report was 
submitted, which caused some excitement in the convention. The 
opposition came principally from the representatives of the Whig 


20 “When Mr. Hammond took his seat, the previous question was called, 
and sustained. The main question was then put and the address adopted 
unanimously by States, the amendments being cut off. 

“Mr. Abercrombie then moved that the States be called, that those who 
were opposed to portions of the address might record their votes in the 
negative. 

“The call was made accordingly, and Messrs. Abercrombie, Davis, 
Murphy, Judge, Byrd, and Hunter, of Ala.; Gholson, of Va.; Foreman, 
of Fla., and Sharkey, of Miss., recorded their votes in the negative.”— 
Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, June 13, 1850. 



226 


Alabama Historical Society. 


party. They simply stated their reasons for not supporting the ad¬ 
dress, however, without entering any protest. These were: 
First, because the convention had given them no authority to 
prepare an address, but simply report resolutions; and second, 
that they themselves were not prepared to say that the impending 
compromises might not be so altered as to make them acceptable. 

After a continuous session of nine days the convention ad¬ 
journed, June 12, 1850. In the event of failure on the part of 
Congress to comply with their demands, it was agreed they should 
reassemble on the sixth Monday after Congress had adjourned, 
or at such a time after Congress had acted as the president might 
appoint. The proceedings and spirit 21 of the first session were 
firm, manly, and dignified. Throughout the Southern States, 
conventions and public meetings 22 were held, at which the action 


81 The Nashville True Whig, of June 18, 1850, says: 

“We have been led to these reflections by the action of the so-called 
Southern convention, convened in this city, and the spirit in which it has 
been received in this immediate community. We have no sympathy with 
the movement. We regarded it from the beginning as unwise and in¬ 
auspicious—as a dangerous, and at the same time, an inefficient remedy 
in itself for the grievances of which we complain—as we shall show it to 
be in the end. But whatever may be said of its impolicy, or its unauthor¬ 
ized and unconstitutional character, or the old heresies of nullification and 
secession which it has put forth in all their odiousness, it embodied a very 
large amount of talent, eloquence and learning, it was composed of in¬ 
dividuals of extensive popular influence in nine of the Southern States, 
its deliberations were conducted with marked ability, and indicated 
throughout a thorough determination on the part of the large majority, 
to carry out, in spirit and in letter, the purport of their published proceed¬ 
ings.” 

“The Alabama Journal, July 23, 1850, gives the following account of a 
ratification meeting in Montgomery, Alabama: 

“In accordance with a notice which had been given in all the papers of 
the city, a large and intelligent meeting of the citizens of the county and 
city of Montgomery, assembled at the court house, to ratify and approve 
the action of the Nashville convention. 

“Mr. Goldthwaite commenced by giving a full account of the convention 
and its proceedings. He passed a high encomium on the abilities and 
patriotism of Judge Tucker, of Virginia. Langdon Cheves, the favorite 
son of South Carolina, from the generation of a former age, around whose 
venerable brow clustered the honors of more than half a century’s devo¬ 
tion to the cause of his country, and upon whose head had fallen the 
snows of eighty winters, was there to lend to their councils the wisdom of 
experience and the dignity of age. Mississippi was there represented by 
her learned chief justice, and other distinguished citizens, as firm in the 
councils as they had ever been gallant in the field; and so on of the rest. 
He traced the unjust and unconstitutional action of the North from the 
ordinance of 1787 down to the present time—their entire faithlessness in 
observing the constitution as well as the legislative compromises which 
they forced upon the South. The associated and affiliated abolition presses 
slavery in the States. Urged on by a blind and bigoted fanaticism, they 



Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 227 

of the convention was endorsed. 23 Occasionally, however, the ad¬ 
dress met with some opposition. 

The second session convened at Nashville, November 11, 1850. 
In the meantime, Congress passed the famous compromise meas¬ 
ures. President Sharkey 24 did not issue a call for a second meet¬ 
ing of the convention. 


claim a dignity and a religion higher and purer than that of Christ, and a 
political conscience above the constitution. All this they claim for the 
purpose of supporting those insurrectionary movements, which will spare 
neither helpless infancy nor hoary age. 

“The Missouri Compromise was offered in the convention as an ex¬ 
treme concession—this had been in effect rejected by the Senate of the 
United States, which offered only another indication and an additional 
proof of the urgent necessity for prompt and efficient Southern organiza¬ 
tion.” 

“The Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, July 2, 1850, contains the 
following account of a speech by Mr. Rhett at Charleston, S. C.: 

“He declared the Federal government to be a failure, so far as the South 
was concerned; and frankly and boldly unfurled the flag of disunion, 
as the only refuge of the South, and as offering her not only a release 
from the fetters of a faithless and oppressive Confederacy, but as cal¬ 
culated to crown her with prosperity and glory. Nay, he even went so 
far as to contend that, if every Southern State should quail and cower 
in the existing crisis, South Carolina alone should make the issue, and 
either live free or perish with honor. He undertook to maintain the para¬ 
dox (to use his own language) of ‘proving to freemen that they were not 
free’; and went on to establish the propositions that the people of the 
South, under the workings of our present system of government were 
slaves. 1. In respect of Federal taxation; 2. In respect of Federal ex¬ 
penditures; and 3. In respect of their peculiar domestic institutions. He 
showed that the Nashville convention had done much; contrary to the 
evil vaticinations of its enemies and the acknowledged apprehensions of its 
friends. It had met—the South had at length dared to meet, and, with 
great unanimity, had proposed the Missouri line—not, however, on the old 
principle of positively inhibiting slavery North, and admitting or excluding 
it South of the line, as the people of the region should decide, on their 
coming into the Union as States, but with a positive recognition of slavery 
South of the line, as an equivalent for its exclusion North of the line. The 
proposition was therefore for a partition of the disputed Territory, between 
the North and South, adapted to the circumstances of the case. The old 
Missouri compromise was applied to slaveholding territory—the new com¬ 
promise is to be applied to non-slaveholding territory—and hence the 
reason and necessity of the change. He was frank and candid enough, 
however, to avow that the idea of effecting an adjustment, on that 
basis, was utterly hopeless—the North would never assent to it.” 

24 Judge Sharkey does not seem to have had very firm convictions as to 
what was the wisest policy. Personally he believed in the justice of the 
full Southern claims. He did not think that these were granted by the 
compromise measures; but he did not consider it wise to insist on more 
than could be obtained, nor to advocate more than Southern public opinion 
could agree upon. 

Before the first session of the Nashville convention met, he became 
discouraged, and wrote to Senator Foote: 

“We must take things as they are, and not as we would have them, 
and shape our conduct according to exigencies. It would have been 



228 


Alabama Historical Society. 


But as the former meeting had decided upon a day for assem¬ 
bling, the president’s call was regarded as a mere matter of 
formality, and preparations were made for the second session. 
New delegates were appointed by the State legislatures or con¬ 
ventions of the people in some instances, while in others the old 
ones were sent and the vacancies tilled. 

The body reorganized on motion of Gen. Gideon J. Pillow, by 
calling the former vice-president, Governor McDonald, of Geor¬ 
gia, to the chair. On the following day, Tuesday, he was unani¬ 
mously elected to the presidency by acclamation. Hon. Reuben 

folly to have insisted on what you and I may regard as strictly Southern 
rights. Nothing could have been obtained by that course. If the com¬ 
promise can be adopted, our honor at least is safe. Indeed, it secures the 
principle for which we have been contending. The mass of the Southern 
people would be content with it. True it does not suit all men. * * * 
Could you do anything that would please all even of your own party? I 
think not. Ultra men can never be pleased. * * * Take my word 
for it, conservative men will aprove your course. The Whigs generally 
approve it, and the moderate men of your own party. In short, I think 
it will be approved by the people .”—Republican Banner and Nashville 
Whig, June 15, 1850. 

After the first session met and showed some vigor, he changed his mind. 
On June 21, he wrote to the editor of the Southron. Referring to his let¬ 
ter to Foote, he said: 

“.The letter was written at a time when it was believed my me, 

as well as by others, not only here but elsewhere, that the convention 
movement would result in total failure. Some of the states had declined 
to appoint delegates; it was believed the delegates appointed by others 
would not attend, and everywhere great opposition was manifested toward 
the measure. It seemed impossible to rally the South in vindication of 
her rights. The advice from Washington City seemed to dispel any hope 
of a creditable convention, and a failure could have no other effect than 
to encourage aggressions on the South. It was also believed that the 
compromise was the best that could possibly be obtained; so, indeed, I 
was distinctly informed. Under such circumstances I wrote the letter 
referred to, in reply to one which contained but a syllabus of the com¬ 
promise, not having seen the details of the measure. But, in expressing 
that opinion, I did not intend to admit that the South was entitled to 
nothing more. My opinions on the subject of her rights are too well 
known, I trust, to be the subject of doubt. I repeatedly declared that the 
South was entitled to an equal portion of the new territories. Since that 
letter was written the Nashville convention has met. Its enemies have 
been disappointed and its friends gratified. It is now seen that the South 
is alive to her interests and her rights. 

I trust the whole South will unite, in a spirit of firm determination, to 
insist upon the line of compromise which we have recommended. This 
shall be my course and I hope by pursuing it to accomplish the 
preservation of the union unimpaired.”—The Eufaula Democrat, July 2, 
1850. 

For some reason he seems to have changed his mind again and de¬ 
termined to take no part in the second session. 






Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 229 

Chapman, of Alabama, was chosen vice-president at the same 
time. President McDonald on taking the chair addressed the 
convention in a short but eloquent appeal, in which he tentatively 
favored secession, without actually recommending that extrem¬ 
ity. 25 On the second day, it was found that several members of 
the former committee on credentials had not returned, where¬ 
upon new ones were put in their place. 26 Later the committee 
announced that the following States were represented: Alabama, 
Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia and 
Virginia. 27 The different States then announced the new ap- 

55 Mr. McDonald said in part: 

“The constitution, then, is the great temple of our religious, political, and 
individual liberty. The sacred rights of millions of freemen are intimately 
interwoven with its structure. If it be destroyed, they must perish with 
it, unless they can be otherwise preserved. The polluted and polluting 
hands of a wicked fanaticism and sectional ambition have already shaken 
its foundation stone. It is in imperial peril. Unless it can be rescued 
from the machinations and violence of evil men, it must fall. Every breeze 
that comes from the North, wafts to our ears the intelligence of some 
fresh wrongs and injustice, of tumults and insurrection against the con¬ 
stitution, and the laws. It may be that while I now speak, the life blood 
of citizens of Georgia crimsons the streets of Boston, and that, for the 
prosecution of their rights under that constitution and those laws. Can 
it be the settled purpose of infatuated and maddened fanatics to drive the 
States of the South to the last measure of safety, short of revolution, seces¬ 
sion from the Union—a measure that should be resorted to only in cases 
of extreme necessity, and after all other measures have failed? I do not 
speak thus to excite resentment, to exasperate. No, it requires wisdom, 
calmness, moderation, courage, to meet the crisis. Those who will con¬ 
template the immense blessings which have flowed from the constitution, 
when faithfully administered, cannot fail to see the finger of God in its 
wonderful construction. Let us then set to work earnestly to preserve it, 
trusting in him to direct us in the means. Shall we rest quietly, seeing the 
approaching dissolution, and make no exertion to avert it, and adopt no 
measures of safety if it must come? No, no. If the constitution be 
doomed to perish, we must nerve our arms to secure the rights it was 
intended to guarantee, relying on the guidance and aid of the Omnipotent 
in so just a cause.”—The Nashville American „ Nov. 12, 1850. 

“The following were the committee in full: Messrs. Pillow, of Tennessee; 
Hutchinson, of Mississippi; Buford, of Alabama; Gordon, of Virginia; 
McWhortor, of Georgia; DuPont, of Florida; Pickens, of South Caro¬ 
lina .—The Nashville American, Nov. 13, 1850. 

27 The following is a list of delegates representing the different States: 

Alabama—R. Chapman, G. W. Williams, C. C. Clay, Sr., J. M. Calhoun, 
and T. Buford. _ . 

Florida—C. H. DuPont, J. H. Verdier, P. W. White, Jno. E. McGehgee. 

Mississippi—J. Macker, J. J. Davenport, A. Hutchinson, W. K. Kil¬ 
patrick, P. Smith, T. J. Wharton, J. C. Thompson, C. M. Lawn. 

Tennessee—A. V. Brown, G. J. Pillow, A. O. P. Nicholson, A. J. 
Donelson, J. B. Clements, T. Claiborne, Dr. M. Esselman, W. G. Harding, 
F. McGavock, T. Morton, W. H. Polk, J. McClavin, J. D. Moseley, and 

L 'South Carolina—Langdon Cheeves, W. J. Hanna, F. W. Pickens, W. C. 



230 


Alabama Historical Society. 


pointments to the general committee on resolutions. General 
Gordon was retained as chairman of this committee. 

Resolutions were introduced from almost every State, which 
claimed to be an expression of its attitude towards the questions 
at issue. Set speeches were made during the convention by 
Messrs. Cheeves, of South Carolina; McWhortor, of Georgia, 
and Governor Brown, of Tennessee. Throughout the session of 
seven days, a marked change from the conciliatory tone of the 
June meeting prevailed. The Tennessee delegation, although 
dominated by the conservatives, was itself divided. General 
Pillow’s resolutions, on the part of the Tennessee delegation indi¬ 
cated an acquiescence in the late acts of Congress, but declared a 
determination to resist any further aggression against Southern 
rights. Hon. Langdon Cheeves, in the resolutions introduced for 
his State (South Carolina), indicated secession as the proper 
remedy for the grievances of the South, and followed it with a 
speech of about two hours, in which he reviewed the difficulties 
between the two sections of the Union, the several recent acts of 
Congress and recommended secession as the proper means of 
future security. In the course of his speech when he reached the 
climax of his eloquence on the present condition of the South, 
he exclaimed: “It is already done; the Rubicon is crossed; 
even now the Union is divided.” 28 Messrs. Hunter, Jones and 
Sneed, of Georgia, also introduced resolutions, in which they 
took essentially the same position as South Carolina. Mr. Mc¬ 
Whortor, of Georgia, later addressed the convention for one 
hour. He denounced the Fugitive Slave law as a “quid pro 
quo of a false character.” “Union and slavery,” said he, “can- 


Young, J. N. Whitner, J. Bradley, S. Otterson, D. Nance, D. F. Jamison, 
W. Grigg, G. A. Trenholm, J. S. Wilson, J. Chestnut, Jr., W. DuBose, R. 
B. Rhett and R. Barnwell. 

Georgia—J. G. McWhortor, J. A. Jones, Jno. D. Steel, W. P. Parker, 
G. R. Hunter, R. Bledsoe,, J. M. Bethune, J. Sneed, C. J. McDonald, H. 
G. Benning, Dr. Daniel. 

Virginia—Gen. Gordon. 

28 “We call this argument of Mr. Cheeves the manifesto—the hand of 
South Carolina. Coming from the most able of her sons, there can not 
be a doubt that it meets with the hearty approval of the able, but mis¬ 
guided delegation. But we can not dignify it with a higher appellation. 
South Carolina may be correctly represented in this convention, but we 
cannot be cajoled into the belief that the people cf any other Southern 
States are leagued with her in her designs upon the unity and peace of 
the Republic .”—The Nashville Gazette, Nov. 15, 1850. 



Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 231 

not long exist together, and what is the South to get? Self- 
preservation is the first law of nature, with States as with in¬ 
dividuals.” Mr. Claiborne, of Tennessee, then followed in the 
same strain for himself, as he said, rather than for his State, 
as he was in the minority in his delegation. Secession was boldly 
and freely spoken of as the only hope of the South. The resolu¬ 
tions proposed by Mr. Clay, of Alabama, were bitter and uncom¬ 
promising in their condemnation of the compromise measures; 
which they termed the “adjustment scandal.” 

Resolutions were introduced by Mr. Davenport, of Mississippi, 
m support of which, he said, a majority of the people in his 
State had acted favorably. They endorsed the right of secession, 
and enumerated the wrongs inflicted upon the South: 

“In view of these aggressions and outrages inflicted upon the 
South and those threatened and impending,” they recommended 
that each of the Southern States appoint delegates to a general 
convention, the time and place to be determined later; that these 
delegates be “clothed with full authority to deliberate and act, 
with all the sovereign power of the people, with a view to arrest¬ 
ing further aggression, and restoring the constitutional rights of 
the South—if possible—and if not, then to provide for the safety 
and independence of the South in the last resort.” 

The Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia delegations proposed in 
their reports that a Southern convention or congress, as the Ala¬ 
bama report styled it, be held at some future date; delegates to 
be chosen by “primary meetings of the people,” in such manner 
as might be suitable to the States participating; and that they be 
clothed with power to take authoritative action with reference 
to the late acts of Congress. The Alabama report said: “We 
recommend to those States who think themselves aggrieved by 
those acts (compromise of 1850), and who wish to unite against 
future aggression, to elect delegates to meet in Georgia some time 
next spring.” Montgomery was also suggested as a suitable 
place for holding this Southern congress. 

The conservative element, who favored peaceful acquies¬ 
cence in the compromises of 1850, upon the one condition that 
they be faithfully executed, constituted a very small minority of 
the second convention. The Tennessee delegation favored reso¬ 
lutions endorsing these compromises. They, however, were al- 


232 


Alabama Historical Society. 


most alone in that position, there being only a few individuals 
from the other States of a similar mind. 

All resolutions were referred to the committee on resolutions, 
whose report was made just before the convention adjourned, and 
was adopted by a vote of six to one, Tennessee voting in the nega¬ 
tive. Some excitement and disorder was witnessed at the closing 
scene of the convention, because, as previously agreed upon, the 
report was adopted without further discussion. 29 No address was 
issued. 

The resolutions, which were prefaced by a lengthy preamble, 
were as follows: 

“Resolved, That we have ever cherished, and do now cherish a 
cordial attachment of the constitutional Union of the States, and 
that to preserve and perpetuate that Union unimpaired, this con¬ 
vention originated and has now reassembled. 

“Resolved, That the Union of the States is a Union of equal 
and independent sovereignties, and that the powers delegated to 
the Federal government can be resumed by the several States, 
whenever it may seem to them proper and necessary. 

“Resolved, That all the evils anticipated by the South, and 
which occasioned this convention to assemble have been realized, 
by the failure to extend the Missouri line of compromise to the 
Pacific ocean. By the admission of California as a State. By 
the organization of Territorial governments for Utah and New 
Mexico without giving adequate protection for the property of 


® Of the closing scenes an editorial says: 

“That the matter may be understood, we give a brief history. The com¬ 
mittee on resolutions had unanimously instructed their chairman, on re¬ 
porting the resolutions on Monday morning, to move the previous question 
on their adoption. The members were anxious to return home, it was 
known that if a debate once commenced it would be almost interminable. 
Messrs. Brown and Nicholson, representing Tennessee on the committee, 
both stated in convention that while they dissented from the report, they 
would take some other opportunity of laying their views before the public, 
and admitted that the reasons for taking the vote without debate were 
satisfactory, and, in committee, consented that the previous question should 
be moved. The previous question was sustained and the resolutions 
adopted. Major Donelson then moved a reconsideration of the vote adopt¬ 
ing the resolutions, stating that he had at the meeting of his delegation 
voted in favor of them, for the purpose of moving a reconsideration. The 
president stated that as the vote had been taken by States, each State 
giving one vote, a reconsideration could only be made by a State—that 
the convention had no knowledge, and could have none, of the votes of 
individual delegates in their private conferences—and that, as the State 
of Tennessee had voted in the minority, her delegation, and much less one 
member of it, could not move a reconsideration .”—The Nashville American, 
Nov. 20, 1850. 



Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon . 233 

the South. By the dismemberment of Texas. By the abolition 
of the slave trade, and the emancipation of slaves carried into 
the District of Columbia for sale. 

“Resolved, That we earnestly recommend to all parties in the 
Slave-holding States, to refuse to go into or countenance any 
National convention, whose object may be to nominate candi¬ 
dates for the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States, 
under any party denomination whatever, until our constitutional 
rights are secured. 

“Resolved, That in view of these aggressions, and of those 
threatened and impending, we earnestly recommend to the slave¬ 
holding States, to meet in a congress or convention to be held at 
such time and place as the States desiring to be represented, may 
designate, to be composed of double the number of their senators 
and representatives in the Congress of the United States, in¬ 
trusted with full power and authority to deliberate and act with 
a view and intention of arresting further aggression, and if pos¬ 
sible of restoring the constitutional rights of the South, and if 
not to provide for their safety and independence. 

“Resolved, That the president of this convention be requested 
to forward copies of the foregoing preamble and resolutions to 
the governors of each of the slave-holding States of the Union, 
to be laid before their respective legislatures at their earliest as¬ 
sembling.’ ? 

The convention adjourned sine die November 18, 1850. A few 
words will sum up its history. During the fall and winter of 
1849-50, the outlook seemed to indicate success, and the prospects 
up to the early spring of 1850 were full of encouragement to the 
leaders of the movement. In most of the Southern States, many 
of the most prominent men in both political parties expressed 
themselves favorably toward it; and in a few instances, public 
opinion rang clear upon the issue. Already several of the State 
legislatures had rendered a favorable verdict. Even in those 
States never represented in the convention, namely, Maryland, 
Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky and North Carolina, some sort of 
encouragement was promised. But so far as known, delegates 
were not actually appointed except in the case of North Carolina. 
The Kentucky Senate killed a resolution of endorsement in the 
spring of 1850, which seems to have ended her part in the matter; 
and in Maryland somewhat the same fate overtook the movement. 
Governor Johnson, of Louisiana, in a published letter upon the 
subject, said: 


234 


Alabama Historical Society. 


“It is with a feeling of lively satisfaction that I see the South 
poising herself in a lofty and patriotic attitude in defense of her 
rights. In my opinion, there is little reason to believe there will 
be any cessation of hostilities at the North, and I earnestly rec¬ 
ommend to the State of Louisiana that she promptly take the 
necessary steps to have delegates at Nashville.” 80 

At a meeting of the Southern Senators, held in Washington, 
April 16th, at which all but four were present, a full recognition 
of the necessity for holding a convention was unanimously recog¬ 
nized. 31 But by this time a persistent state of indifference among 
many Democrats, and a growing disaffection among the Whigs 
generally, had grown to threatening proportions. To counteract 
this tendency much zeal was spent by those deeply interested. 
Open letters were written by Southern representatives in Con¬ 
gress to their constituents. In some sections, speakers addressed 
the people in stirring words of eloquence. The sympathy and 
support of the West was sought and promised. Hon. John W. 
Davis, ex-Speaker of the House of Representatives, in reply to an 
invitation to attend the convention, expressed himself as sorry 
for having it reach him so late that he could not attend. He said: 

“Had it reached me in time, I should certainly have given it 
my attention with a view to serving the South by attempting to 
bring the West to the rescue of the South in maintaining the 
constitution against the attacks made upon it at the North. I 
earnestly urge, however, that the South forego a threatening 
aspect for a time at least. In my opinion, the West will stand for 
the constitution. I think the South has very just cause to feel 
deeply interested in the matter of wanton disregard of the con¬ 
stitution practiced by the Northern fanatics. I believe the Gov¬ 
ernment is with the South.” 32 

In those days, when confidence and hope reached the high 
water mark, the opinion was frequently expressed in different 
parts of the country, “that upon this vital question to the South 
there is perfect union of parties.” These rumors caused a state 
of alarm at the North of sufficient intensity in some places to call 
forth public meetings of such a character and in such numbers as 


80 Montgomery Advertiser, Feb. 6, 1850. 

81 Ibid, April 16, 1850. 

82 New Orleans Delta, Dec. 3, 1850. 



Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 235 

to justify the conviction that Northern representatives in Con¬ 
gress would be forced by public sentiment among their constitu¬ 
ents to submit to the Southern demands in regard to the territor¬ 
ial question. 33 The excitement and apprehension was sufficient at 
one time to cause the circulation of the report that the president 
would issue a proclamation about the middle of May warning the 
citizens of the Southern States not to take part in any treasonable 
action; and that General Scott would be ordered to the neighbor¬ 
hood of Nashville with a military force to put down any move¬ 
ment against the government. 34 The satisfaction of the Southern 
leaders also reached its climax then, and their confidence found 
expression in the prediction that the convention would accom¬ 
plish its chief aim so effectually, even before it could assemble, 
that there would remain little necessity for actually holding the 
meeting. Congress, they thought, would interpret the bent of 
public sentiment throughout the Union, and yield to the South 
upon the questions agitating the nation. Some expressed the be¬ 
lief that “the great, patriotic, conservative heart of the nation 
will respond to the appeal, and the whole question will be finally 
and satisfactorily settled if the States are fully represented in the 
convention.” 

But during this period of uncertain promise, the movement 
passed its palmiest days. In most instances, the favorable action 
of the State legislatures and the poorly attended conventions 
proved to be hasty and unrepresentative of the whole people’s at¬ 
titude; for the fact soon became apparent, as the pulse of the 
Southern masses was tested more accurately, that the plan must 
be a signal failure so far as the accomplishment of its original 
intent was concerned. The irregularity in the method of the se¬ 
lection of delegates, and the indefinite instructions given them, 
were further indicative of the fact that the people were not deeply 
concerned and were disposed to await developments. This was 
especially true of the leading representatives of the Whig party. 
Still others were never quite decided in their opinions as to the 
motives inspiring the movement and the objects to be attained. 35 

83 Montgomery Advertiser, April 24, 1850. 

84 Montgomery Advertiser, March 27, 1850. 

“Governor Brown, of Florida, in reply to an address from his State’s 
representatives in Congress requesting him to cause the selection of dele¬ 
gates, said: “I have no right to recognize such a convention, and, further- 



Alabama Historical Society. 


236 

Extreme conservatism in a few instances, bitter ultraism on the 
part of some, 36 party jealousy and distrust, militated much more 
against the success of the convention. At a public meeting in 
Montgomery, May 13, Messrs. Wm. L. Yancey and Jefferson 
Noble pled with all true lovers of the South to stand together 
upon this issue. “Already,” said Mr. Noble, “the opposition to 
it and the disunion of the South upon this great question had 
worked us more real harm than all the abolitionists at the North 
combined.” 87 

The Whig press, as the time for the assembling of the conven¬ 
tion approached, became, almost universally, loud and bitter in 
its condemnation. “Ultraism,” “treason,” “traitor” and “rebel¬ 
lion” were common epithets. Its originators were often held up 
to the public as ambitious demagogues and dissatisfied politicians 
seeking to gratify their own selfish ambition, and ready in their 
reckless desperation to destroy the constitution and the Union. 

Mr. Clay’s ability and reputation kept many Whigs hopeful 
that Congress would settle the territorial question satisfactorily. 
Besides, Mr. Webster, in his 7th of March speech, by his con¬ 
ciliatory attitude, and by his cordial support of Mr. Clay, aided 
in the reactionary sentiment among Southern men. On the 31st 
of March, Mr. Calhoun died. When his part in getting up the 
convention is borne in mind, there can be no doubt that his death 
was an inestimable loss to the movement. 

Whatever possibility for the union of the whole South upon 
this issue there might have been vanished when Congress passed 
the compromise measures; that was, indeed, the final stroke that 

more, believe it to be revolutionary and contrary to the spirit of the con¬ 
stitution, which says, “no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or 
confederation.”—Montgomery Journal, March 17, 1850. 

86 In a pamphlet, entitled “The North and the South,” published at 
Columbia, South Carolina and circulated throughout the Southern States, 
the view of the situation taken by the extremists was set out in five propo¬ 
sitions : 

“First, there is a controversy between the North and the South. 

“Second, this controversy cannot amicably be settled. 

“Third, a collision is inevitable. 

“Fourth, immediate dissolution of the Union—a Southern Confederacy 
and a taking possession of certain Territories by force of arms, is the 
only remedy. 

“Fifth, that this should be the object and action of the Nashville con¬ 
vention.”—Montgomery Journal, April 23, 1850. 

87 Montgomery Journal, April 26, 1850. 



Nashville Convention of 1850.— Herndon. 237 

killed this forlorn hope. A majority of the people in the South 
accepted this adjustment, no doubt, in a spirit of sacrifice, for 
the common good. It will be remembered that President Shar¬ 
key refused to call the November session on the ground that, 
while not all that he had wished, the compromise was the best 
that might be expected. Following his example, few if any 
Whigs or conservative Democrats attended. In the elections that 
followed in the next few months, a great majority of the Southern 
people ratified the action of Congress. 










































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































f 40 



























































o 

cf* _ „ 

X 3 L. 'o . * * ^ 




* aVA, j 
* 1 ? % ’ 



«* y> ♦ 


- *Cn 

: ^ v 


;* °*yw. : -j 


♦ O ^ A_v 

* -o/ ' 


& o o " 0 * <$> 


<* ,o 




i <y & ° M ° + 



^o« 


.■tq, 


, 0 * t «‘LJ* **b, Ay 

• umk • - /»w b ^ 0* • ‘ *b & 

? ~?W§; £°+ \life *.°^ v 

;/ A V %/ .-M- •'■ 

<* ’.j^s*** v# ■%. »: 

<b * >..«’ ,o v ’a. '«'. 7 • .<% 



* \V^ j 


0 * ^ 

^ ^ 0 « 


<0* ^o o 

°^ “^Ifils^ 0 * $P ^ v* <«5 ^ - 


V* p®V »4 <*> 


~ .7 »' * '*£>_ < 




yj^ % 



'W 


' ” N^ ( ,.. .^V* 0 / J ... % *•*• A' 

/ * v* m %y ■■ 

O * 6 * » 


* 0V * 


r * A V ^ 

V ** *. 


'*»*_■'■ aV ... <*■ *-..<* jO 


r ^ 

-c. ^ 


** <IX *d. ww *■ •«> 


^b_ '• . 7 * 


.* : 

/ 



% ”°° ^ ^flt^ 


’ *° ,,* ‘^r> y> °o 0 ° <$? 


/ , 
'V - 

-V : 

^ * 

<+ 

• ^ 


V^ e 


*^* •’ < r* 7 * <\ 


%<? 


;* & % * 


’ 




i * <£> ^ o' 



v. ■*•«• ^ '••»• A <v <> * , '*t:.* .o v > -0.7* 

* ^ .O^ • 1 ' # -♦ Jy (,<>*«+ ^ # ^ ^r% 

tv. , 0 *W^,\ o o'* *%, C° «C>r% 4 ’ o , 




vj> «-& 


^ O. ♦♦tT 9 .o g 


o K 


“ ^ .a. "I* 


^ * 


kV 

«P O 

•• 


0 


* ■» * .-ft v 

V' o a „« * o, y % * »* 

* * A ^ • - .A /. * *> A 


1 >° ^ 
K - » •o. 




Vs- 


’-w^*‘ ^ v \ •,W. : -.w 

'o • * * A / *w j' fj* \5 *6 mk * A, -<•• * , *®*«r*^ 

# * ^ A> „ - - V <A • 4 A U %i> ® • * ,\ v ' • • * 


V 4 * c ' 










^ 4 
o V 

v 


' 0 ' A c 


k 0 


k # 6 * 
^* o^ 


o <i ^ 

^ <-V o' 


O K 




^ o» ' V 


0 ^ 



* 5 Tjs , ^ 

0^ i 


K*' * 

v v- ^ °*u~* ®T» 0 .o-' ^ ^ r 

A o v > \> 5 ***^ .’*<». *y tS *-, 

y .v^-- ^ ^ ^ ^ v 


: : '£B&z ^ 


«/\ “.w ^ 7 ^p;*“ o »“w 

‘‘‘oA*^* \ '°''\<f >°"'-\ -"A... °V°* 1 

Ii\^ V C * j&tflTfeu o 4 «js55^vv^ r° *l a f>oX,X °-> 

b% v> <; *> dF(l//XX' * .*» -v* ■» <Sxv\\n'^^ - 7 ^ . o + s^fU/yp-X ^ ° 


^ A v * 
V^ e ' 


S ^.7 


^OV 4 


^ 0* 


>°v v 


”0^ 


■*• 0 
* 5 °.* 

O q q/ >* s yjr~' ^ 

*** ,'•<>, *’' Treatmenl Date: May 2010 

X \,^ ,\^£X a »J f^servationTechnologies 


* Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

* „ , • - ^ ! Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 


^ V 
,V^ 


V, ovJj&AF* at ^ 




? * 0 1 
4 arj V 'O. 


A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(7241 779-9111 


«^\\\SX 



Cp vP. ° WZ nSVVW * A''A -» ® C vT' 

/ ^ ° vJKJ * AV . fcfiffA* A* vP. o 

vl • 6r^ , v- ^ *^W^rv A 'Kt ° 

^ ® • * * A <* A- 

* 1 * ♦ <D < v 0 o « o V t , . ^ 

O ,1 p » #• z*U C) 






- * 

* 4 A * 

A> - „ _ V* • • 

4? ^ 





v-’ / V^-’A 

'* AV * ^ \?> V A** 

* % <r 4Vr ^ a .* 

: tf :#M*. - 

'** ^ ** -.pff*,/ V -■ 



® « A 


A o A 

A° *> 

b & ^>Va % ^ a* * 

v! 'IMw* W 

<?» v%XKp * _v b. o 

<b ■‘ , ''4.«* «G^ *b '*'o\7 - A 

,cr .• l "« ♦<> , 4 > '••• A v ... - 4 . 

• % « 0 ^3^.’. * A «’^<. A 4 c° °o 

5 V- 7 j * • J Oj. 

* K' _ *'%,li\Y^vS> * v <?* a. <^ / y//H\^ff ^ <J/ X<i «* 

* ^b *♦ V **v rt 0 ^ &aV , * % ' y o o 

’‘'/,'' • ".'\''’V *-•;>.\ •"“y° .... 

’ \ l wm' : lfiil : A \w§. ; /\ 

.,. V '••*• A ... % ^ A V'» * * * \<v O 

,*?y . 6 JW% ^ ,0* ^b. A % t 0 " 0 * 



• » t 



A V 


? 4 V ^ -A 



it * 1 




^ A 


o V 





^ • i? ■’j. ” 

1 ... ^ *‘'‘ o ’ , ^°‘ ^ **»'• A 

■ % A O- O’ »••• 

• :«: ‘ 


aV Aik ‘ , *‘ v ^^ v \* a,> v* • w <>. oX/jeav 

Vb^"“ #k 4 ° ^ " yC* % * •***\sS? 

> A#> .or .**•'** o .4 o 0 N a * A n v k# *#* 

a. 0 ^c&/r?7^>* o vi‘y' *A^.r *p /*y i a-d 

l M a ** y^T f }//syz> * .o - 3 T * T>. >. ^ * &iu. 7 /^ 2 ■. \ ^ 

& . V* a> _ ri\ * A-. o /T\ v* A ^ JKW/yZs^** -4 






o ** a 



^0 


V *• v ^ 

^ *V r. ‘a, 


O V 
4° 




■"b v* 


« M 0 





\ v v^k »■ <^y^ 7 /ijjy s 

■>' (P * ‘A y f* «. 

. u V. "’ y 

<0 «>!,*°*» \> v **V'* o 

Kft. S( « -s. . 7 * '.riiakXtntv '*’ 

$> * jA^^a. ° .A * 


4°^ 


r & %. 

• a <. -' 

o, A "“JL 0 * ^ 
*> A o' •*•■ 



°o* t *v 





a 


* -* 
* ** % \ 


» u ° ° a0 * * I 1 

<0^ *’•»- V> V 

• MA§lPr2 ® A*? 

^ A v 'o 

V .V^v' 0 j 


A °°J. '* • Vo ° <0 



^ A' 

vv ; 

i. ° 0 

r.’.* <6* ^b. "o.T* A <. 

.0^ t* *■ JJ* • ^O 6 0 H ® * y ‘b. 




* -» AV V*. 

* A ^ ^ > * 

* A <\ 

/ 6 ®*!* 4 

n <i ^>\\\n > %k *»• *v 


> ,^°- 
V % ,‘ # * 

® A '"b ° 

' A v ^ * 

e ' . 0 ' o » 




• - 0 ° aP '^b v *•*'••’ A 
<o v *«•<»- ^ 

/ S^M/fc. Xf 


























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































